Monday, February 11, 2008

Article Tools

Bob Sanger, attorney for former UCSB soccer player and convicted rapist Eric Frimpong, has filed a motion for a new trial, based on perceived discrepancies during the trial, the jury deliberation and after.

Sanger filed motion after motion during the trial, which wrapped up just before the Christmas holiday, most of which were denied by Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Brian Hill. Many of those motions are reiterated in Sanger’s file for a new trial, while other arguments which came to light after the case are also highlighted. “While courts are reluctant to grant new trials, this case cries out for judicial intervention to avoid a life-shattering injustice,” Sanger wrote in the document, filed in court last month. Frimpong, a native of Ghana who graduated from UCSB last spring, was scheduled to be sentenced for the crime on January 31, but the hearing was delayed because the probation officer in charge of Frimpong’s case needed more time for a report. Frimpong is facing between three and eight years behind bars.

During jury deliberations, one of the jurors was arrested for driving under the influence, which Sanger argued should have led to that juror’s dismissal, as “alcohol was a central issue in this case.” The victim in the case admitted to having more than ten drinks over the course of the night in question, and state Department of Justice estimations suggest the victim could’ve had a blood-alcohol content level as high as .34. “There is no way a person in Juror Number 5’s position could have remained impartial in light of the fact that she was arrested for driving under the influence,” Sanger wrote.

The victim, a 19-year-old UCSB student, claimed that she met Frimpong early in the morning on February 17 outside of an Isla Vista party, when he invited her back to his house to play beer pong, points which Frimpong doesn’t dispute. After beer pong, she said, they went down to the beach, where he proceeded to rape her. He was arrested the next day. Frimpong supporters claim the two parted ways not long after the beer pong game, after he rejected passes she made at him. Alcohol, drunkenness and hazy memory were themes raised again and again in the case - in reference to both the night of the rape and to the victim’s previous outings.

The motion contains a declaration by one of the jury members, who claims that during deliberations a requested readback of testimony was interrupted and not properly conducted, and that the jury rushed through deliberations as a result of pressure to conclude the case by a certain day. The reason for the pressure, according to Sanger’s argument, was, among other things, the planned vacation of one of the jurors. “I feel that I made a terrible mistake,” the declaration of the juror said. “I felt rushed and stressed to conclude this case. We were not given the evidence we requested. I do not think the verdict was fair and it should be set aside.”

Sanger also argued that prosecutor Mary Barron had committed prosecutorial misconduct when, in her closing argument, explained that Frimpong had ten months to come up with an alibi but still had none. Frimpong, protected by the 5th amendment, had the constitutional right not to testify, Sanger argued, and Barron, in her argument statement, suggested that perhaps he should have. Hill denied a Sanger motion at the time, describing the comment as “brief and mild.” Sanger writes that he was not provided with evidence from the prosecution, including castings of the teeth of the victim’s boyfriend, Benjamin Randall, created by Dr. Norman Sperber, a prosecution witness. Randall’s semen was found in the victim’s panties she was wearing that night, a fact which should have made him a suspect, the defense argued, and Sanger didn’t receive the castings until mid-trial. Also, his dental expert was not able to respond to the castings because they were provided too late, and the doctor was ill at the time and undergoing surgery, unable to testify. “The cumulative effect of these errors was prejudicial to defendant,” Sanger wrote. “This was a close case and defendant was denied his right to a fair trial based on the factors described.”

The district attorney’s office will be filing an opposition to the motion before the next trial date, which is scheduled to be Feb. 28. Barron said the prosecution is on “solid legal grounds with regard to the issues that the allege,” and is currently working on the response. She declined to go into details about the motion until after the next court date.

The "life-shattering injustice" is the one committed by Frimpong supporters in their debase attacks on the survivor's character. This motion is a Sanger smoke & mirrors show. Alcohol was not a "central issue" in this case. Sanger made it one in an attempt to discredit the survivor and distract from the mountain of evidence against Frimpong. The survivor is not on trial, her alcohol consumption is irrelevant and her testimony unnecessary due to the physical proof of rape by Frimpong. Those of you who arbitrarily decide his guilt or innocence are showing disrespect for the dedicated professionals and jury who have labored over the details of this case.

Can the legal community of Santa Barbara please get together to help this man, pro bono? This is so out of control, it's got to be set straight INSTANTLY. I'm embarrassed for our community for what's happening to him!

Also, what's this "survivor" nonsense? As for "the dedicated professionals and jury who have labored over the details of this case" ... did you even read the article? It's a juror who said the verdict should be set aside. And Sanger is an officer of the court and no less a dedicated professional than Mary Barron.

Apparently 'Curious' should also labor over the details of the case as the details seemed to have completely escaped him or her. No matching DNA is incredible in a case where there are apparently extreme amounts of bodily fluids passing between the defendant and the accused. I also beg to differ about alcohol consumption being a irrelevant. Poeple do very strange things after consuming large amounts of alcohol and anyone that has drunk too much knows the feelings of guilt and despair the next day. It is very pertianant in this case. And rushing to judgement due to vacation plans is inexcusable when you are tlaking about altering the course of someones life.

Guilty guilty guilty. In my opinion, he could not be any more guilty.First off, if the survivor did have a BAC of .34, that is WELL above the point of her being able to give a legal, "enthusiastic" consent to have ANY kind of sexual relations (whether oral copulation, intercourse, or what-have-you). Without a sober, un-coerced consent, it's RAPE.Secondly, even if she was completely sober (BAC of .00), she still did not give an un-coerced, enthusiastic yes. (I keep saying "enthusiastic" because someone who is pressured into have sex (either coerced or otherwise) is, according to the law, a rape survivor (/victim).) She did not consent whatsoever. Hence, IT WAS RAPE!!!Third, it doesn't matter if the juror was arrested for driving while intoxicated (although, if I were the judge, I would've removed said juror).Wake up people. HE...IS...GUILTY!!! Granting him another trial would be a slap in the face of both the survivor and our judicial system.P.S. It seems to me this article is very biased.

To Pepsifan:You miss the central issue here. No one has argued that she wasn't forcibly raped; only that Frimpong didn't do it. The relevance of her BAC has nothing to do with whether she gave consent; only whether she was so impaired by her drunkeness that her credibility in identifying Frimpong as the attacker is questionable. Her BAC was so high that had it been a few hundreths of a point higher, she would have been in the range of alcohol poisoning and could have died from over-drinking. At that level (she apparently blacked out for a time).how could she reliably identify Frimpong or anyone else as the attacker?

It most certainly DOES matter that one of the jurors may have been biased. Everyone has the right to a fair and IMPARTIAL trial by a jury.

There were several serious irregularities in the trial, any one of which could have caused Frimpong to be erroneously convicted. To borrow your phrase, NOT granting him a new trial would be a "slap in the face" to all of us because it violates our Constitution.